Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1380 - AT - Central ExciseJob work - valuation - waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority as differential duty. - held that:- By elimination of Rule 2 to 10 as they may not apply in a situation like in this case provisions of Rule 11 will apply and Revenue has to take the recourse to provisions of Rule 11 which talks about using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules read with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Keeping this in mind, we find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints (1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) will squarely apply i.e. to ascertain the assessable value on the cost of materials plus processing charges. In our view, the appellants have been correctly valuating their products by adopting this method. Valuation under rule 8 - cost plust 10% - held that:- It can be seen that in Ultrapack (2009 -TMI - 76599 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), Rule 8 was invoked because it was undisputed that repacking was done on behalf of Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. which would clearly attract the provisions of Rule 8. The situation in the current appeal before us is totally different which has been set out by us in the earlier paragraphs. In view of this, the decision of this bench in the case of Ultrapack will not be applicable.
|